Singaporean vs. Singaporean
-
I find your point laughable, for the very reason it attempts to be very pragmatic without going the whole way.Originally posted by wisefool83:As I answer 13 earlier, yes, it is legal, but immoral. So it means, you are greedy and prob plays a dirty hand, but legally speaking, it's not illegal. A proper legal system would therefore prevent this from happening. Why PAP ministers are able to give themselves great payrise but not get into serious trouble yet is because of the amount that they take.
Consider this, a pay of 2 million per annum per minister is going to cost a Singaporean less than 50cent per year. Even if we have a hundred of such minister, it's going to be $50 per annum, which amounts to about $4 per month. Wide spread corruption across the serivices however, as we are observing on the Traffic polices and custom officers in our neighbours however, are more costly on the individuals who run into them. In media, one very very angry voice is louder than thousands of not so very angry voice.
At the same time, highly paid ministers do not deter business investments, as investors do not foot the bill directly and since all taxes are transparent, the costs of investment are foreseeable. Which is more than I can say for lower level corruptions. Businesses are important to the average people as they are the ones, not the govt, who would be directly money to the masses. (hmmm.... I've digress, but hey, if you can take all my hard earn money in your own world, I guess it's only fair I say all I want in my own thread)
So what you are saying in other words is that our government has no choice but to be corrupt if they are being paid any less then they are currently?
I seriously doubt that. We didn't pay our ministers peanuts before the pay rise, and the whole justification of controlling corruption is flawed to begin with- it is an excuse, not a real reason.
The bottom line is, if we can tolerate such legal immorality in our top ranks of government, which is supposed to consist of our "most upstanding" examples anyway, then there is no saying what else that will be tolerated in the name of "legality".
What this means is that instead of relying on the proper ways of curbing corruption, and that is to raise our people and soceity with proper moral values and character, we have opted to think that the alternative is acceptable, and that is to assume that morals are irrelevant and simply legalize and control corruption by making some forms of it legal.
There is something seriously wrong with this approach.
No soceity can be built on pragmatism alone, and if we take such a pragmatic approach towards corruption within our government, then there is no reason for the common Singaporean to bother with any idealism when it comes to anything else with Singapore.
Why serve NS when you are paid crumbs and face a 2-year disadvantage when you finally get out? Why defend a nation that exists soley on pragmatic values? Why put your life on the line for something that regards your rights as a sentient being as expendable in the interest of national survival?
The more we try to run our nation like a company, the less it becomes like a nation to its people.
The truth is, we can still be transparent and FAR cheaper to our own citizens and investors. The bogeyman of corruption is being used to jack up legal costs higher and higher when the real threat here is really GREED.
And frankly could you bother to think of a good point before you post? -
Those that try to limit others view, while telling others that their views are the only right one. You don't see me telling you not to make your points heard, do you? While there you go telling overseas Singaporeans and ex-Singaporeans not to make comments about Singapore. Aren't you limiting you and others to a narrow minded road?Originally posted by sgdiehard:why everytime somebody look at Singapore with a positive view is said to be having narrow views?? I believe with a broader heart no views are narrow views.
-
Everybody speak because they believe their views are right.Originally posted by maurizio13:Those that try to limit others view, while telling others that their views are the only right one. You don't see me telling you not to make your points heard, do you? While there you go telling overseas Singaporeans and ex-Singaporeans not to make comments about Singapore. Aren't you limiting you and others to a narrow minded road?
All are free to speak in this forum, but we are also free to comment on others comments. I can tell those who have migrated just to run away from the problem in Singapore that their comments and suggestions have little values if they are not here to bear the consequences with fellow Singaporeans. This is my view, "put your money where your mouth is", narrow minded?
Other than a few forumites (on both sides of camps, and some in between) here who are actually presenting some ideas with supporting information, most are here to shout slogans: we want clean and uncorrupted government, we want transparency, GST Increase Not Justified, Help the Old Age, Help the Poor, Down with......, and of course there are names calling.
Do you hear much analysis on the pro and cons of some policies, or why the negative impact of some policies outweigh the original good intentions, or if any policies could achieved better result if implemented properly. If I were collecting good arguments or information useful for next election campaigns, what would I learn from these people and their argument? nothing, even the slogans they use are not innovative at all.
Many people here are going all out to criticise the government, the policies and then say lets migrate. How many people who have mirated shared their experience on the good, the bad, the sorrowful and the happy aspect of life as immigrants. Of course, only the good things....and not the bad " if you haven't lived there, how do you know there are bad...." another narrow minded statement? -
The root of all these problems is that the government has too much power, after all, Unlike America, Singapore has no bill of rights or some sort to limit the power of the government, so the government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force. So the government can suddenly decide to raise their pay LEGALLY, and increase GST Legally. Who knows in future they may decide to bankrupt (like suggested in an earlier post) some people Legally and few would complain because its LEGAL
BTW for those that don't know, the bill of rights limits the government to only do the things that are allowed which is very very limited ideally.. -
quite well said. the government is indeed having too much power, but i don't think too much will be with them in the next few GE to come. everything increase i won't think they will support PAP too much.Originally posted by ulquiorra87:The root of all these problems is that the government has too much power, after all, Unlike America, Singapore has no bill of rights or some sort to limit the power of the government, so the government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force. So the government can suddenly decide to raise their pay LEGALLY, and increase GST Legally. Who knows in future they may decide to bankrupt (like suggested in an earlier post) some people Legally and few would complain because its LEGAL
BTW for those that don't know, the bill of rights limits the government to only do the things that are allowed which is very very limited ideally.. -
You know why they wanted to increase the GST immediately?Originally posted by BusSpeeder:quite well said. the government is indeed having too much power, but i don't think too much will be with them in the next few GE to come. everything increase i won't think they will support PAP too much.
There is a recency effect, if they increase too close to the next General Elections, Singaporeans will remember and cast a different vote. But by increasing immediately after the elections, they have 5 years to make the memory effect fade.
By the next General Elections, they will use their money illusion tactic again, give out up to two thousand dollars to entice citizens to vote for them. After the elections, increase the GST and the price of everything again. The cycle continues.............
They realised that there are not many smart Singaporeans around. The smarter ones who are abled, have migrated to other first world countries. What's left are the laggards who can't think if their life depended on it. -
Will one la.Originally posted by BusSpeeder:quite well said. the government is indeed having too much power, but i don't think too much will be with them in the next few GE to come. everything increase i won't think they will support PAP too much.
Still got some very loyal PAP followers vote for them one.
No matter wad increase. -
In life you will realised that there are some problems that is beyond your abilities to solve. Not everything can be solved by you alone, if it's so, then the world will be a better world for "YOU". If you find that your neighbour, like the Joo Chiat family who antagonises everybody else in the neighbourhood. You can engage him, talk to him, try to sway him to your side. But if all else fails, the only other alternative is to move away from him. Else suffer the indignation of living next to him. This example shows that you can solve your problems in two ways, convert him or move away from him permanently. The problem ceases to be your problem, the problem is solved. One must know one's abilities, you don't have the power or ability to change this administration. Harvard law professors and the rich have tried, failed and exiled.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Everybody speak because they believe their views are right.
All are free to speak in this forum, but we are also free to comment on others comments. I can tell those who have migrated just to run away from the problem in Singapore that their comments and suggestions have little values if they are not here to bear the consequences with fellow Singaporeans. This is my view, "put your money where your mouth is", narrow minded?
Other than a few forumites (on both sides of camps, and some in between) here who are actually presenting some ideas with supporting information, most are here to shout slogans: we want clean and uncorrupted government, we want transparency, GST Increase Not Justified, Help the Old Age, Help the Poor, Down with......, and of course there are names calling. Do you hear much analysis on the pro and cons of some policies, or why the negative impact of some policies outweigh the original good intentions, or if any policies could achieved better result if implemented properly. If I were collecting good arguments or information useful for next election campaigns, what would I learn from these people and their argument? nothing, even the slogans they use are not innovative at all.
Many people here are going all out to criticise the government, the policies and then say lets migrate. How many people who have mirated shared their experience on the good, the bad, the sorrowful and the happy aspect of life as immigrants. Of course, only the good things....and not the bad " if you haven't lived there, how do you know there are bad...." another narrow minded statement?
Good policies does not include increasing one's salary at the expense of the populace, unless it's done with pareto optimality. That is a clear indication of the ruling party self serving objectives. It's difficult to truly analyse the policies of the ruling elites, because a lack of data on the opposition's side, the administrations lack of transparency on certain issues. Like the current 3 extra strokes meted out to a prisoner, it's shows a clear indication that the administrations lack of controls, checks and balances.
A narrow minded person, is one who seeks or tries to limit other's thought by imposing only one line of reasoning (most likely his), without considering other alternatives. Like a person telling a former Singaporean, who has migrated to another country from giving his perspective on his former country and his current country. If you haven't live in another country, how do you know it's not good there, ex-Singaporeans have lived in two countries, they would be in a better position of give their views than you or me. -
You are right in two aspects, firstly, move away, the problem will cease to be your problem, secondly one must know one's abilities. NOBODY QUARREL WITH ANYBODY WHO SAYS "THIS IS BEYOND ME, I QUIT". Can't handle PAP, or the Singapore government, quit, yes, like the Harvard law professors.Originally posted by maurizio13:In life you will realised that there are some problems that is beyond your abilities to solve. Not everything can be solved by you alone, if it's so, then the world will be a better world for "YOU". If you find that your neighbour, like the Joo Chiat family who antagonises everybody else in the neighbourhood. You can engage him, talk to him, try to sway him to your side. But if all else fails, the only other alternative is to move away from him. Else suffer the indignation of living next to him. This example shows that you can solve your problems in two ways, convert him or move away from him permanently. The problem ceases to be your problem, the problem is solved. One must know one's abilities, you don't have the power or ability to change this administration. Harvard law professors and the rich have tried, failed and exiled..
None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away, why? because Joo Chiat is their home. Nuisance in the neighborhood can be a noisy dog, or dirty c o ckcroaches, the Chan family just happens to be a human nuisance. Applying your logic or mentality, nuisance such as dogs and c o ckcroaches are small problem, can handle, human is big problem, cannot handle, so quit. To the families in Joo Chiat, "this is my home, no quitting! we join force, we cooperate, want to make monkey faces, want to fight in court, we fong bei." See the difference?
Obviously the Harvard law professors couldn't handle political heat, that's why they better remain as academicians. But who say the rich have left, I see more and more of them are buying up expensive properties here.
Nobody says that increasing one's salary at the expense of the populce is a good policy, everybody agree that this is a self serving objective of the ruling party, everybody knows that there is a need for controls, check and balance, the whole Singapore want to have more oppositions in the parliament, everybody who reads newspapers know that the ST is pro government, .........no need to preach to the converted, no need to "repeat after me".Originally posted by maurizio13:Good policies does not include increasing one's salary at the expense of the populace, unless it's done with pareto optimality. That is a clear indication of the ruling party self serving objectives. It's difficult to truly analyse the policies of the ruling elites, because a lack of data on the opposition's side, the administrations lack of transparency on certain issues. Like the current 3 extra strokes meted out to a prisoner, it's shows a clear indication that the administrations lack of controls, checks and balances.
A narrow minded person, is one who seeks or tries to limit other's thought by imposing only one line of reasoning (most likely his), without considering other alternatives. Like a person telling a former Singaporean, who has migrated to another country from giving his perspective on his former country and his current country. If you haven't live in another country, how do you know it's not good there, ex-Singaporeans have lived in two countries, they would be in a better position of give their views than you or me.
And of course it is difficult to analyse their policies, because these were set by scholors, all highly educated ones. of course the government won't provide you the data lah, you think they want to give you the ammunition to shoot them, need them to also tell you where to shoot? and be reminded that when you shoot wrongly, you will be sued. Can you handle that or not?
I don't limit anybody's thought, but is there any thought at all or just words? I am looking for alternatives, but is there any other than MIGRATION? There is no need to repeat after me the argument "If you haven't live in another country, how do you know it's not good there",
You don't need to go to Disneyland to know that you can have fun there, to Hokkaido to know that you can be frozen to death....interesting to read that it was the migrated ones who thought that the people in China live a simple life in jungle and tree.
Everywhere you go, there will be good experience, bad encounters, difficult people, helpful friends, moment of joy and sadness, feeling of achievement, sentiment of loss. What is narrow minded? a mind that only look at one aspect of the experience, good or bad. The only time when find a place where there is only joy and happiness, no sorrow no tears, you must have died and gone to heaven. -
In regards to the underlined, you are kidding , right?Originally posted by sgdiehard:Nobody says that increasing one's salary at the expense of the populce is a good policy, everybody agree that this is a self serving objective of the ruling party, everybody knows that there is a need for controls, check and balance, the whole Singapore want to have more oppositions in the parliament, everybody who reads newspapers know that the ST is pro government, .........no need to preach to the converted, no need to "repeat after me".
And of course it is difficult to analyse their policies, because these were set by scholors, all highly educated ones. of course the government won't provide you the data lah, you think they want to give you the ammunition to shoot them, need them to also tell you where to shoot? and be reminded that when you shoot wrongly, you will be sued. Can you handle that or not?
I don't limit anybody's thought, but is there any thought at all or just words? I am looking for alternatives, but is there any other than MIGRATION? There is no need to repeat after me the argument "If you haven't live in another country, how do you know it's not good there", You don't need to go to Disneyland to know that you can have fun there, to Hokkaido to know that you can be frozen to death....interesting to read that it was the migrated ones who thought that the people in China live a simple life in jungle and tree. :mrgreen:
And this is so funny. You seem to shoot down Singapore whom you appear to defend with a paragraph like that.
As far as I know, the China chinese in Australia are either scholarship students with very high intelligence or ULTRA filthy rich OR just migrant workers like me
. Ah yes I migrated..... -
Firstly, you have to understand the difference between a Mr. Chan Cheng Koon and Mr. LKY. They are hardly equitable characters, one is a nobody, has no political or administrative control; while the other is a political titan in Singapore's arena. All the administrative controls lies within this titan even the judiciary. It would be foolhardy to take on such a person.Originally posted by sgdiehard:You are right in two aspects, firstly, move away, the problem will cease to be your problem, secondly one must know one's abilities. NOBODY QUARREL WITH ANYBODY WHO SAYS "THIS IS BEYOND ME, I QUIT". Can't handle PAP, or the Singapore government, quit, yes, like the Harvard law professors.
None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away, why? because Joo Chiat is their home. Nuisance in the neighborhood can be a noisy dog, or dirty c o ckcroaches, the Chan family just happens to be a human nuisance. Applying your logic or mentality, nuisance such as dogs and c o ckcroaches are small problem, can handle, human is big problem, cannot handle, so quit. To the families in Joo Chiat, "this is my home, no quitting! we join force, we cooperate, want to make monkey faces, want to fight in court, we fong bei." See the difference?
Obviously the Harvard law professors couldn't handle political heat, that's why they better remain as academicians. But who say the rich have left, I see more and more of them are buying up expensive properties here.
Secondly, don't make wide sweeping statements like "None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away". Have you done any research on this topic or have you any proof that none of them moved away. The houses in that particular enclave ranges from unit 130 to 152, with alphabets from "a" to "c "suffixing the numerical units. There could be 30 to 40 families living there. Can you say that Mr. Chan only offended 7 families? Is it not possible that there could be families not wanting to pursue due process chose to relocate instead? Can you say that no families relocated from that enclave within that 10 years time span? So unless you have conducted interviews with all the families there and provide reasonable proof that nobody relocated within that 10 years time frame, then you can proceed to make such sweeping statement. You can only say, 7 families decide to take legal action against Mr. Chan.
Can't understand the whole paragraph about cockroaches. It's too convoluted, maybe you can rephrase it. Thanks.
Ermmm....
This Harvard law professor used to work under LKY's administration as the solicitor general. If a titan such as him who knows how LKY ticks, can't handle our benevolence, what makes you think that commoners like you and me can take him on. Sometimes when people are high on drugs, they think that they can fly, but can they really? Know your own limitations.
Yes, one is able to know that you can enjoy yourself by visiting Disneyland USA and Disneyland Hong Kong, but how does one know the degree of fun experience there? You can only get your information from people who have visited there, by limiting one's communication with parties who have experience both Disneyland, only choosing to hear from people who have only visited Disneyland Hong Kong, you will get an extremely lopsided view of the two Disneyland. To be impartial we should listen to both side of the story and based our judgement from the two sources of information.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Nobody says that increasing one's salary at the expense of the populce is a good policy, everybody agree that this is a self serving objective of the ruling party, everybody knows that there is a need for controls, check and balance, the whole Singapore want to have more oppositions in the parliament, everybody who reads newspapers know that the ST is pro government, .........no need to preach to the converted, no need to "repeat after me".
And of course it is difficult to analyse their policies, because these were set by scholors, all highly educated ones. of course the government won't provide you the data lah, you think they want to give you the ammunition to shoot them, need them to also tell you where to shoot? and be reminded that when you shoot wrongly, you will be sued. Can you handle that or not?
I don't limit anybody's thought, but is there any thought at all or just words? I am looking for alternatives, but is there any other than MIGRATION? There is no need to repeat after me the argument "If you haven't live in another country, how do you know it's not good there", You don't need to go to Disneyland to know that you can have fun there, to Hokkaido to know that you can be frozen to death....interesting to read that it was the migrated ones who thought that the people in China live a simple life in jungle and tree.
Everywhere you go, there will be good experience, bad encounters, difficult people, helpful friends, moment of joy and sadness, feeling of achievement, sentiment of loss. What is narrow minded? a mind that only look at one aspect of the experience, good or bad. The only time when find a place where there is only joy and happiness, no sorrow no tears, you must have died and gone to heaven.
You are trying to equate an experience and an opinion. Both have differing meanings. An experience (joy or sorrow) according to you is not subject to your control, during your lifetime, you have no choice in deciding what you want to experience more, experiences are of a stochastic nature, you cannot limit yourself to only joy and therefore according to you be narrow minded to a particular experience. You cannot walk along the streets and avoid bird sh|t if you wanted to. You don't say, you have a narrow minded experience, or do you?
Perspectives or opinions are of a personal nature, your personal views on issues. You can control your views by limiting yourself to one particular line of thought (you cannot limit experiences to only joy).
Don't try to mar the distinction between experiences and opinions, they are clearly different. And then proceed to justify your logic through such fallacious definitions. -
Why do you need to take on LKY? but if you don't have a good support to your case, even Mr. Chan Cheng Koon can sue you till your pants drop, then you know if he is a nobody or not.Originally posted by maurizio13:Firstly, you have to understand the difference between a Mr. Chan Cheng Koon and Mr. LKY. They are hardly equitable characters, one is a nobody, has no political or administrative control; while the other is a political titan in Singapore's arena. All the administrative controls lies within this titan even the judiciary. It would be foolhardy to take on such a person.
You prove to me that families have moved out because "all else fails, the only other alternative is to move away from him". This is your statment.Originally posted by maurizio13:Secondly, don't make wide sweeping statements like "None of the families involved in the Joo Chiat families moves away". Have you done any research on this topic or have you any proof that none of them moved away. The houses in that particular enclave ranges from unit 130 to 152, with alphabets from "a" to "c "suffixing the numerical units. There could be 30 to 40 families living there. Can you say that Mr. Chan only offended 7 families? Is it not possible that there could be families not wanting to pursue due process chose to relocate instead? Can you say that no families relocated from that enclave within that 10 years time span? So unless you have conducted interviews with all the families there and provide reasonable proof that nobody relocated within that 10 years time frame, then you can proceed to make such sweeping statement. You can only say, 7 families decide to take legal action against Mr. Chan.
Well, you only need to understand the statement "To the families in Joo Chiat, "this is my home, no quitting! we join force, we cooperate, want to make monkey faces, want to fight in court, we fong bei."Originally posted by maurizio13:an't understand the whole paragraph about ^%#!roaches. It's too convoluted, maybe you can rephrase it. Thanks. .
You and I are commoners who can vote, can join opposition parties, the professor cannot. What make you think he is a titan, just because he is a professor?Originally posted by maurizio13:Ermmm....
This Harvard law professor used to work under LKY's administration as the solicitor general. If a titan such as him who knows how LKY ticks, can't handle our benevolence, what makes you think that commoners like you and me can take him on. Sometimes when people are high on drugs, they think that they can fly, but can they really? Know your own limitations. .
Sometimes when people feel they are small, I don't have to stoop low.
The biggest limitation is to limit the improvement of your ability.
If changing Singapore simply means taking on LKY, then that is easy, just wait, he is already well over 80.Originally posted by maurizio13:
no need to give lessons on definitions on words, just make sure you do not "limit experience to only joy or bitterness". It is so near, yet so far.
Yes, one is able to know that you can enjoy yourself by visiting Disneyland USA and Disneyland Hong Kong, but how does one know the degree of fun experience there? You can only get your information from people who have visited there, by limiting one's communication with parties who have experience both Disneyland, only choosing to hear from people who have only visited Disneyland Hong Kong, you will get an extremely lopsided view of the two Disneyland. To be impartial we should listen to both side of the story and based our judgement from the two sources of information.
You are trying to equate an experience and an opinion. Both have differing meanings. An experience (joy or sorrow) according to you is not subject to your control, during your lifetime, you have no choice in deciding what you want to experience more, experiences are of a stochastic nature, you cannot limit yourself to only joy and therefore according to you be narrow minded to a particular experience. You cannot walk along the streets and avoid bird sh|t if you wanted to. You don't say, you have a narrow minded experience, or do you?
Perspectives or opinions are of a personal nature, your personal views on issues. You can control your views by limiting yourself to one particular line of thought (you cannot limit experiences to only joy).
Don't try to mar the distinction between [b]experiences and opinions, they are clearly different. And then proceed to justify your logic through such fallacious definitions.[/b] -
Kidding? I am no kidding. The policies may have come from the top, but it is they who came out with the implementation plans, some may be even, the policies drafters, proposers.Originally posted by fymk:In regards to the underlined, you are kidding , right?
And this is so funny. You seem to shoot down Singapore whom you appear to defend with a paragraph like that.
these people work for the government, many were scholors, educated overseas (not in China), trained by Harvard Professors! When we argue about domestic politics and policies, these are the people on the other sides of the table, all Singaporeans.
If Singaporeans need to be shot, we must shoot, but aim correctly, also we don't wash dirty linens in the public.
my friend, below is your remarks, on 15 June 2007, in the thread "All out to defame our government."Originally posted by fymk:As far as I know, the China chinese in Australia are either scholarship students with very high intelligence or ULTRA filthy rich OR just migrant workers like me . Ah yes I migrated......
"Simple life in Australia maybe - healthcare is free, pension is there to cover the bills , lots of cheap rural properties . Yes you have racists around but who bloody cares as long as you have cash.
Simple life in China maybe - if you live up the mountains and have your own veggie patch.
Simple life in Singapore- HAHHAHAHAHAHAH".
You know the filty rich China Chinese in Australia, but take note the simple Chinese in China don't live up the mountains having their own veggie patch. I am putting words into your mouth. -
You get to pay more GST, you get to enjoy the NDP at Marina Bay, but overall I don't find the benefits impressive anyway.Originally posted by Trump_Card:What benefits are there being a Singaporean anyway ? -
Well you are taking my words out of context.Originally posted by sgdiehard:my friend, below is your remarks, on 15 June 2007, in the thread "All out to defame our government."
"Simple life in Australia maybe - healthcare is free, pension is there to cover the bills , lots of cheap rural properties . Yes you have racists around but who bloody cares as long as you have cash.
Simple life in China maybe - if you live up the mountains and have your own veggie patch.
Simple life in Singapore- HAHHAHAHAHAHAH".
You know the filty rich China Chinese in Australia, but take note the simple Chinese in China don't live up the mountains having their own veggie patch. I am putting words into your mouth.
That was an answer to a simple life - one of my china friends actually have a relative up in the mountains ( where air is fresher) growing fresh vegetables and living simply there. Ever heard of buddhist monks and buddhist monastries and temples around mountainsides in China?
if you want to twist my words , try harder, coz this ain't working. -
Buddhist monks in Buddhist monastries, Taoists monks in Taoist temples, choose to live up in the mountains, are exclusive communities in their own, away from the corrupt of materialism, the temptation of the world.Originally posted by fymk:Well you are taking my words out of context.
That was an answer to a simple life - one of my china friends actually have a relative up in the mountains ( where air is fresher) growing fresh vegetables and living simply there. Ever heard of buddhist monks and buddhist monastries and temples around mountainsides in China?
if you want to twist my words , try harder, coz this ain't working.
Chinese in China wanting to live a simple life do not need to live in the mountains like the monks, not only do they have to have their own veggie patch, but also need their own electricity supplies, own sanitary system, own well for water or from river or stream.... and this is in comparison with "Simple life in Australia maybe - healthcare is free, pension is there to cover the bills , lots of cheap rural properties . Yes you have racists around but who bloody cares as long as you have cash."
Out of context? hmm.... twisting your words? you are really capable in twisting your own words, I surrender. -
Simple life have many contexts to it. Don't shoot urself in the foot over this one.Originally posted by sgdiehard:Buddhist monks in Buddhist monastries, Taoists monks in Taoist temples, choose to live up in the mountains, are exclusive communities in their own, away from the corrupt of materialism, the temptation of the world.
Chinese in China wanting to live a simple life do not need to live in the mountains like the monks, not only do they have to have their own veggie patch, but also need their own electricity supplies, own sanitary system, own well for water or from river or stream.... and this is in comparison with "Simple life in Australia maybe - healthcare is free, pension is there to cover the bills , lots of cheap rural properties . Yes you have racists around but who bloody cares as long as you have cash."
Out of context? hmm.... twisting your words? you are really capable in twisting your own words, I surrender. -
I second that. Then again, aren't police states the safest places in the world ( assuming you aren't an "enemy of the state" )?Originally posted by maurizio13:You want a safer country at the expense of civil liberties? Why not try Democratic People's Republic of Korea? I heard it has very low crime rates too. If you want lower crime rates, just have public execution for thefts, rapes, robbery, pickpockets, embezzelment, kidnapping (oops, I think we already have death sentence of this crime) by our Gurkha firing squad. I am sure crime rates will drop lower.
Most "Canadian visitors to the DPRK do not experience problems. The crime rate is low. Petty crime occurs, especially at the airport in Pyongyang and in public markets."
"In 1997, Amnesty International gathered detailed eyewitness accounts from independent and unconnected sources of at least 23 people, including one woman, who were publicly executed in several locations in North Korea between 1970 and 1992. The organization reported that the death penalty is handed down to those convicted of a wide ranges of crimes, from theft, to assault and rape, and murder.(22)"
Look, if one coveted personal safety at the expense of everything else - from the freedom of civil liberties to bearing the brunt of disasters like famine - then North Korea would truly be a paradise on earth. After all, it's even immuned from the threats of terrorism - how many countries can say that? -
It's the perfect Utopia for OM, much safer than Singapore, all it has to do is to embark on modernising it's economy, in no time, it will be another Singapore.Originally posted by walesa:I second that. Then again, aren't police states the safest places in the world ( assuming you aren't an "enemy of the state" )?
Look, if one coveted personal safety at the expense of everything else - from the freedom of civil liberties to bearing the brunt of disasters like famine - then North Korea would truly be a paradise on earth. After all, it's even immuned from the threats of terrorism - how many countries can say that?